The Falkland Islands: Argentinas Economic Sanctuary or Another British Territory?

Lillian S. Carey Latin American and Caribbean History Spring 2014

In 1982 Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. The islands were under the rule of the United Kingdom at the time of the invasion. Under the direction of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the British sent their navy to the islands; in doing so, they answered the call to war. The British fought to keep their land, acting out of principle, arguing that Argentina was breaking international laws. Argentina believed they were getting the land back that rightfully belonged to them, even though they hadnt had control over the islands since the 1830s. Argentineans believed the land should be theirs because of its close proximity to their country. Although Argentinas 1982 invasion of the British-ruled Falkland Islands resulted in defeat, the majority of historians believe Argentina had a greater use for the land, in which vast amounts of oil was found, which could bring economic prosperity to the struggling nation. However, this oil was not discovered until more recently, meaning, at the time of the initial military engagement both nations fought under motives for power and control. It was not until this decade that historians considered the Falklands to be an economic resource for Argentina. Both nations, in their haste for dominance, left the opinions of the islanders out of the matter and ignored the desire of many Argentineans and British for peace. The United States involvement in the war gave an outsiders perspective to the debate. The government struggled over which nation they chose to support. Bret Stephens, an American journalist for the Wall Street Journal, explores the American opinion in his article, Why the Falklands Matter. Through his work he presents the advantages and disadvantages of supporting either side. Stephens articulates, "Either they could oppose the war and effectively legitimize the military ambitions

of a dictatorship otherwise known for torturing, murdering and disappearing its left-wing political opponents. Or they could support the war and give implicit sanction to something possibly more evil: British jingo, plus Mrs. Thatcher."1 For many the war was a choice of supporting the corrupt dictatorship, that currently occupied the Argentinean government, or supporting the British Empire, which seemed to be fighting for an illegitimate cause. The opinion of Thatcher and the British in general, was that they fought for principal, which some viewed as admirable, however, many nations thought the war was not worth the trouble. Stephens represents the ideals of those who supported the British in their endeavor. He cited George Shultz, former United States Secretary of States, "The British decision to go to war, wrote George Shultz in his memoirs, was the first marker laid down by a democratic power in the post-Vietnam era to state unambiguously that a free world nation was willing to fight for a principle. The world paid attention to this".2 Shultz represented one side of the argument that believed the UK was keeping Argentina in line, and protecting what was rightfully theirs.3 Many other Europeans disagreed. Julian Barnes is a writer from the UK, who wrote an article in The Guardian about the Falklands War. In this article he discusses the perspective of the rest of the world and how the British reacted to this. Barnes concludes, The fact that the rest of the world viewed the war as a bizarre and brainless squabble between nostalgic imperialism and nostalgic fascism was

Stephens, Bret. "Why the Falklands Matter." The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 9 Apr. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2014. 2 Stephens. 3 Barnes, Julian. "The Worst Reported War since the Crimean." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 25 Feb. 2002. Web. 02 Apr. 2014.
1

irrelevant; we didn't care what the rest of the world thought, except to imagine that it was impressed.4 Through his mention of the carelessness of the UK, he represents the idea with which many people agree, which was that the UK was acting upon an unimportant motive. Just two years before the war erupted the UK proposed giving the Falklands back to Argentina. They went so far as to bring up the idea to the House of Commons and offered to give up the islands for almost nothing.5 Michael White, assistant editor for The Guardian, wrote about the effects of such decisions on the United Kingdoms part. He argued, "It was her rash defense cuts (the Thatcher groupie Liam Fox has just repeated the trick) that gave the Argentineans (my generation still says 'Argies') the idea and the opportunity to invade. That awkward detail was hardly remembered in the flush of victory."6 White is referring to Thatcher attempting to relieve the UK of the islands when he speaks about her defense cuts.7 Specifically he was referring to when Thatcher decided to pull the warship stationed in the Falklands in order to save money.8 Barnes seems to believe this proved she no longer had any interest in involving the UK in the islands. White decided the UK was losing power compared to the rising superpowers around the world.9 This could have been their reason for going to war, as they were fighting for pride of their nation, as many historians previously agreed.
Barnes. Barnes. 6 White, Michael. "Falklands War: Thatcher Won, but Has Galtieri Had the Last Laugh?" Theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 03 Apr. 2012. Web. 02 Apr. 2014. 7 White. 8 Barnes. 9 White, Michael.
4 5

Not only did Thatchers early actions make it seem as though the UK didnt care about remaining in control of the Falkland Islands, but Thatcher seemed to act without the support from the rest of the government. The opportunity arose just as Thatcher found herself in an unpopular position with the public.10 Using this war as a leverage point Thatcher used her position in the matter to prove herself to the British. However, White argued she would have proven herself worthy of her powerful position without going to such extremes as engaging in the Falklands War.11 To make her decision less credible White brings up the point that multiple antiwar politicians within the nations government were not present when the decision to engage in war with Argentina was made.12 However, Thatcher chose to act on her own accord and in doing so engaged her nation in what Andy McSmith, a reporter for The Independent, described as the worst overseas crisis since the loss of the Suez Canal.13 Part of this criticism over the conflict comes from the sheer brutality of the war. The Falklands War was barbaric and many deemed it unimportant, mostly due to Thatchers seemingly irrelevant motives. McSmith compiled the opinions of multiple Argentineans to find a consensus that within 15 years the UK would once again find the islands useless and off load the land. He argued his point that the war was a waste of the UK resources in the greater scheme of things.14 However, McSmith seems to believe both Argentina and the UK fought an illegitimate war.

White. Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2014. 14 The Independent.
10 11

Jorge Luis Borges, a well-known Argentinean writer, compared the ordeal to two bald men fighting over a comb,15 and in doing so directly stating neither nation should have invited the trouble the war became. It was acting through these imperialist and fascist motives, of each nation, that caused both to act mindlessly. The UK chose to send their whole military across the water during the winter storm season. White looks back upon this and deems the nation lucky, because sending so many people in such conditions when the cause was not urgent seemed an uncalculated risk.16 It was all of this risk taking from both parties that led to the 2,800 casualties from this war.17 This outraged people all over the world, especially because the UK acted without thoroughly processing their decisions. Barnes describes the UKs choices as aggressive and argues the UK chose to react to this issue to compensate for all of the times Latin America disrespected the UK.18 The consensus of Latin American historians is that Argentina deserved the Falkland Islands because of the support it could have given the developing nation. Their perspective is from a contemporary point of view, as they argue the oil found in the islands would have been of great use as the country fought against rising poverty levels.19 However, oil wasnt discovered until 1998 and Argentina invaded the islands in 1982, so the oil was not the original motive for Argentina to invade. Many still believe this reason is good enough to award the islands to Argentina, thus
15
16

The Independent.

White. 17 Barnes. 18 Ibid. 19 Glennie, Jonathan. "Falklands Oil Revenue Must Help Develop Argentina Not Boost UK Coffers." Theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 30 Apr. 2012. Web. 08 Apr. 2014.

improving their economy.20 Currently in Argentina, 13% of children are economically active, meaning they are contributing to the families economic resources, and the gross domestic product (GDP) of the country as a whole is only one quarter of that of the United Kingdoms.21 Argentina would have made 25% of the revenue from oil extracts, which Jonathan Glennie, a public aide researcher, believed could add up to $1.5 trillion to its coffers over the next few years.22 Not only do all historians believe this could be a breakthrough for the struggling economy but they believe Argentina should have won on the grounds of destroying the British economic imperialism alone.23 In fact many Latin Americans still hold a grudge about the history of the British taking Latin American resources without proper compensation.24 George Grant, a writer for the Telegraph, argues the opinion of the Falkland Islanders themselves, who have stated their desire to remain British.25 Over the past three years the UK has treated the islanders well, which is why White believes the islanders want to be British.26 However, Grant believes islanders wish to be British just to spite Argentina. Argentina invaded the islands with such force that many believe they lost their opportunity to win over the islanders.27 The British are playing into the desires of the islanders, to strengthen their credibility. They have mentioned the principle of equal rights and self-determination of people, which
Glennie. Ibid. 22 Glennie. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Grant, George. "Argentina Has No More Claim to the Falklands than Canada Does to Alaska." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 11 Mar. 2008. Web. 08 Apr. 2014. 26 White. 27 Grant.
20 21

promotes giving the right to the people of the Falklands to choose their reigning nation.28 The British have also treated the islanders very well while in power. The UK wishes to set a new standard for their actions toward Latin America, as opposed to their previous violent imperialist ways, they are now giving the Falklands equal shares of the revenue from their natural resources and spreading the wealth equally.29 Despite the many historians that have stated the wrong nation won the war, there are many who argue the outcome of the war was positive. Stephens argues the outcome was positive because it put an end to the oppressive Argentinean dictatorship.30 Bill Hetherington, writer for the Peoples Peace Union (PPU), is quoted in saying, "Small wonder, then, from hindsight, that, when the Argentine military junta, led by General Leopoldo Galtieri, which had seized control in a 1976 coup, was inevitably losing support in its dirty war of oppression against its own people, involving summary executions and disappearances, it resolved to embark upon the populist cause of reclaiming the Malvinas and thereby restoring Argentinas putatively besmirched honor."31 Stephens stated it was good for the UK because it returned order and respect. Stephens argued that, "The Falklands also showed that good things could flow from a war. For Britain, victory meant the return not just of the islands, but also of international and self-respect. It meant that the U.K. still counted in the world, that its views mattered, that its decline was not

28
29

Grant. Glennie. 30 Stephens. 31 "Falklands War." Falklands War. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2014.

inevitable."32 Despite those who argue a positive outcome, the majority of historians would agree that Argentina should have won the war over the Falkland Islands. There is no way to tell whether or not a different outcome to the brutal war over the Falklands would have improved the current state of the nations involved. However, many historians speculate a victory for Argentina would have created an economic shift for the nation, improving its social structure and giving the nation more independence as a whole. Through the work of most historians the British were portrayed as being selfish and egotistical, and they fought to remain in control of their status as a dominant nation. Argentina fought for a more legitimate cause as their desire was to expand their own nation. It is the economic gain that would have developed in recent years from oil drilling that causes historians to admit Argentina would have found the land more useful and thus should have been victorious.

32

Stephens.

Bibliography

Internet: "Falklands War." Falklands War. N.p., Apr. 2007. Web. 08 Apr. 2014. Trueman, Chris. "The Causes of the Falklands War of 1982." The Causes of the Falklands War of 1982. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2014. Periodicals: Barnes, Julian. "The Worst Reported War since the Crimean." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 25 Feb. 2002. Web. 08 Apr. 2014. Glennie, Jonathan. "Falklands Oil Revenue Must Help Develop Argentina Not Boost UK Coffers." Theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 30 Apr. 2012. Web. 08 Apr. 2014. Grant, George. "Argentina Has No More Claim to the Falklands than Canada Does to Alaska." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 11 Mar. 2008. Web. 08 Apr. 2014. "Key Facts: The Falklands War." BBC News. BBC, n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2014. McSmith, Andy. "Thatcher Confidential: The Untold Story of the Falklands War." The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 22 Mar. 2013. Web. 08 Apr. 2014. Stephens, Bret. "Why the Falklands Matter." The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 09 Apr. 2012. Web. 08 Apr. 2014. White, Michael. "Falklands War: Thatcher Won, but Has Galtieri Had the Last Laugh?"Theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 03 Apr. 2012. Web. 08 Apr. 2014.

10